Exclusion in Area-based Urban Policy Programmes

Abstract

Area-based urban regeneration programmes such as the New Deal for Communities in the UK, the German Soziale Stadt and the Danish Kvarterloft are based on a participatory approach emphasizing active citizen participation and the involvement of local stakeholders. The article argues that these initiatives are not as open and inclusive as they strive to be, and in this article, we explore the different types of exclusion that can take place when such programmes are implemented. Based on the theoretical literature and on empirical data from the Danish Kvarterloft project, we identify three types of exclusion—structural, discursive and deliberate exclusion—and offer a theoretical analysis and an empirical account of these exclusions. The article concludes that practitioners as well as politicians need to reflect critically on different types of exclusion in order to create transparent and inclusive democratic processes.

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on early versions of this article.

Notes

The new generation of European urban policy programmes include initiatives such as City Challenge and the Single Regeneration Budget initiated in England in the early 1990s and more recently the New Deal for Communities; in Scotland Urban Partnerships and Priority Partnership Areas; the German Soziale Stadt; the Dutch Grote-Stedenbeleid and Urban Programmes; the Sociaal Impulsfond in Belgium; Politique de la Ville in France; the Swedish Storstadssattsningen (De Decker et al., 2003; Groth-Hansen, 1998) and the Danish Kvarterloft which celebrated its 10th anniversary in 2007.

The neighbourhoods were deliberately chosen to be of different size and challenges. The Kvarterloeft took place in seven neighbourhoods in the cities of Aalborg, Randers and Kolding in Jutland and in Avedore, Nord-Vest, Kongens Enghave and Holmbladsgade in metropolitan Copenhagen.

The formalized networks consisted of citizens, representatives from local NGOs and cultural and sports organizations, together with representatives from the local public institutions, e.g. schools plus civil servants and consultants from the Kvarterloft programme.

The local committee represented citizens and representatives from the local institutions and housing associations. The actual composition of the Kvarterl⊘ft committees varies (Larsen, 1999)